If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The guy did not submit a $48 billion earmark. It is just a figment of the right wing media's imagination and you bought it. Just like the $200 million a day for the trip to go to Asia the rumor Michele Bachmann spread and the wacko's here fell for it hook line and sinker.

$200 million a day?
Nov 6th 2010, 18:17 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, DC

SOME people just can't estimate travel costs. President Barack Obama is visiting Asia this week. Conservative bloggers and talk-radio hosts (Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and so on) and tea party darling Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) claim that his trip is costing taxpayers a staggering $200 million a day. (Some also claim that the Navy is dispatching 34 ships and an aircraft carrier to support the mission. More on that later.) The White House says that's not true. Who's right? Google powers, activate! Here are some excerpts from a PolitiFact article debunking the claim:

We think Bachmann and others have a responsibility to back up statistics they cite. And in this case, the backing appears to be one news story, relying on an anonymous state government official in India. People familiar with presidential travel say that estimate is way off, and they question how a government official in India would know anyway. And a report by the independent [Government Accountability Office] backs that up: A trip to India by Clinton, regarded at the time as perhaps the most expensive in history, was estimated to cost $50 million, or $10 million per day. That alone should cause someone to question the $200 million a day figure. In short, we don't see any evidence to back up this statistic. And we rate Bachmann's claim False.

This story has spread rapidly among the president’s critics, but there is simply no evidence to support it. And common sense should lead anyone to doubt it. For example, the entire U.S. war effort in Afghanistan currently costs less than that — about $5.7 billion per month, according to the Congressional Research Service, or roughly $190 million per day. How could a peaceful state visit cost more than a war?

Morrell told reporters he was making an exception to the practice of not discussing Presidential security details to shoot down the reports. "I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy—some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier—in support of the president's trip to Asia," said Morrell at today's Pentagon briefing. "That's just comical. Nothing close to that is being done."

It's sad that someone even has to debunk these ridiculous claims. Any reasonable person who heard the $200 million a day number should realise that it's off by at least an order of magnitude. Even Bill O'Reilly "knows the figure is nuts." But as New York magazine's perfect headline explains, "Republican Anger Over Cost of Obama’s Trip to India Will Not Be Stopped by Facts." Indeed.http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulli...mas_india_trip

The guy did not submit a $48 billion earmark. It is just a figment of the right wing media's imagination and you bought it. Just like the $200 million a day for the trip to go to Asia the rumor Michele Bachmann spread and the wacko's here fell for it hook line and sinker.

$200 million a day?
Nov 6th 2010, 18:17 by N.B. | WASHINGTON, DC

SOME people just can't estimate travel costs. President Barack Obama is visiting Asia this week. Conservative bloggers and talk-radio hosts (Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and so on) and tea party darling Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) claim that his trip is costing taxpayers a staggering $200 million a day. (Some also claim that the Navy is dispatching 34 ships and an aircraft carrier to support the mission. More on that later.) The White House says that's not true. Who's right? Google powers, activate! Here are some excerpts from a PolitiFact article debunking the claim:

We think Bachmann and others have a responsibility to back up statistics they cite. And in this case, the backing appears to be one news story, relying on an anonymous state government official in India. People familiar with presidential travel say that estimate is way off, and they question how a government official in India would know anyway. And a report by the independent [Government Accountability Office] backs that up: A trip to India by Clinton, regarded at the time as perhaps the most expensive in history, was estimated to cost $50 million, or $10 million per day. That alone should cause someone to question the $200 million a day figure. In short, we don't see any evidence to back up this statistic. And we rate Bachmann's claim False.

This story has spread rapidly among the president’s critics, but there is simply no evidence to support it. And common sense should lead anyone to doubt it. For example, the entire U.S. war effort in Afghanistan currently costs less than that — about $5.7 billion per month, according to the Congressional Research Service, or roughly $190 million per day. How could a peaceful state visit cost more than a war?

Morrell told reporters he was making an exception to the practice of not discussing Presidential security details to shoot down the reports. "I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy—some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier—in support of the president's trip to Asia," said Morrell at today's Pentagon briefing. "That's just comical. Nothing close to that is being done."

It's sad that someone even has to debunk these ridiculous claims. Any reasonable person who heard the $200 million a day number should realise that it's off by at least an order of magnitude. Even Bill O'Reilly "knows the figure is nuts." But as New York magazine's perfect headline explains, "Republican Anger Over Cost of Obama’s Trip to India Will Not Be Stopped by Facts." Indeed.http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulli...mas_india_trip

He threw it out there.
It got a negative response and he pulled it back, laughingly saying it was all a misunderstanding, he was just being polite.

You buy it, because your judgemnent is clouded with hatred and ideology (though you don't know what yours is).

He threw it out there.
It got a negative response and he pulled it back, laughingly saying it was all a misunderstanding, he was just being polite.

You buy it, because your judgemnent is clouded with hatred and ideology (though you don't know what yours is).

And you call people stupid?

RK

Well, here is more for you. Maybe you can comment on this:

So to avoid their wrath, congressional Republicans have made some really big shows of swearing off earmarks for the next two years. House Republicans did it first, and then a bit more reluctantly, Senate Republicans followed suit, even though their leader, Mitch McConnell, has brought a lot of federal bacon back to his home state of Kentucky over the years.
BLOCK: So David, help us understand, though. How is it that Republicans who are railing against these earmarks at the same time are loading the spending bill with earmarks for their home states?
WELNA: Well, yeah, right. Republicans have requested about 5,600 earmarks this year, and they got a lot of them approved. GOP leader McConnell, for example, has $86 million worth of earmarks in this big omnibus package. South Dakota Republican Senator John Thune got more than $38 million worth approved. And when I asked him why he hasn't requested that they be removed from the omnibus, he said he's voting against the whole package. But of course, that omnibus might pass, and since there are some Republicans who will vote for it, that way McConnell and Thune and 31 other Republican senators who all requested earmarks this year could get them despite their public stance of being against them.

*This includes earmarks sponsored jointly by Democrats and Independents

RK

There are currently no Independents serving in the U.S. House of Representatives. There are two Independents currently serving in the U.S. Senate. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Joesph Lieberman of Connecticut. Both Senator Sanders and Senator Lieberman caucus as Democrats. Ryan P. Christiano.

The guy did not submit a $48 billion earmark. It is just a figment of the right wing media's imagination and you bought it. Just like the $200 million a day for the trip to go to Asia the rumor Michele Bachmann spread and the wacko's here fell for it hook line and sinker.

Roger, I've concluded that it's a complete waste of time to argue with someone who posts up complete BS from people like that arse hat and arse hats like Breitbart, stuff that is either made up or poorly sourced, and when you call them on it they insult you and call you a know it all.

This BS isn't funny anymore. The country's future is at stake and we have people people like these arse hats spreading untruths and half truths to support an agenda, and people who base their opinions on complete BS and fiction that these scum bags put out there because it supports or confirms their twisted view of the world.

As a country, we are truly screwed.

"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

Roger, I've concluded that it's a complete waste of time to argue with someone who posts up complete BS from people like that arse hat and arse hats like Breitbart, stuff that is either made up or poorly sourced, and when you call them on it they insult you and call you a know it all.

This BS isn't funny anymore. The country's future is at stake and we have people people like these arse hats spreading untruths and half truths to support an agenda, and people who base their opinions on complete BS and fiction that these scum bags put out there because it supports or confirms their twisted view of the world.

As a country, we are truly screwed.

Yeah, you call them on it and they resort to name calling. The righties here are pulling for Obama to fail. What I keep reminding them of is if he fails he will be a one term President and the whole mess will fall back in the Republicans lap where it belonged in the first place.

Actually tickle up economics does have a stronger theoretical argument than trickle down. Poor people always spend their money. Rich folks don't. Give money to the poor and they buy groceries, gasoline, cigarettes, booze, crack, OR whatever. Give money to a rich man, and he puts it into his bank account or blows it on the stock market. Either way, it stimulates nothing. Not saying I think we need to be giving to anybody. Can't we all just agree to stop "trickling" period?

Yeah, you call them on it and they resort to name calling. The righties here are pulling for Obama to fail. What I keep reminding them of is if he fails he will be a one term President and the whole mess will fall back in the Republicans lap where it belonged in the first place.

Obama has failed. And the Republicans do deserve to have a shot at fixing the mess they were so instrumental in creating. Both good arguments for NOT voting for Obama again.